ORIGINAL PAPER Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting public support Kai Ma 1 • Dingzhen Liu 1 • Rongping Wei 2 • Guiquan Zhang 2 • Hao Xie 2 • Yan Huang 2 • Desheng Li 2 • Hemin Zhang 2 • Haigen Xu 3 Received: 22 October 2015 / Revised: 1 September 2016 / Accepted: 13 September 2016 / Published online: 21 September 2016 Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Reintroducing captive-born individuals of some extirpated flagship animal species is a helpful and remedy measure for promoting biodiversity conservation, and a successful reintroduction relies heavily on public support. However, little information is available on the factors affecting the public support for reintroduction of large carnivore species. In order to evaluate public support and willingness to pay for the Giant Panda Reintroduction Project (GPRP), we conducted 1100 interviews in August 2014 at Huaying city, Sichuan, China, close to where captive-born giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) will be reintroduced. The results showed that local people strongly support this project and that 78.5 % of them are willing to pay an annual contribution. Per capita annual payments averaged USD31, and the potential value of donations to the GPRP in Huaying is about 11 million USD per year. Factors like interviewees’ residential area, occupation, education level, liking of wildlife, level of concern for wildlife conservation, the degree of familiarity with giant pandas, and the frequency of visiting captive giant pandas significantly affected their attitudes and willingness to pay for the project. The notion of ‘‘because I love pandas’’ was the main reason why respondents were willing to pay for the project; respondents’ doubts about the appropriate use of donated funds made them be unwilling to pay for the Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1215-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. & Dingzhen Liu [email protected]1 Key Laboratory of Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R. China 2 Key Laboratory for Reproduction and Conservation Genetics of Endangered Wildlife of Sichuan Province, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Wolong 623006, Sichuan, P. R. China 3 Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Nanjing 210042, P. R. China 123 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 DOI 10.1007/s10531-016-1215-6
Transcript
ORIGINAL PAPER
Giant panda reintroduction: factors affecting publicsupport
Received: 22 October 2015 / Revised: 1 September 2016 /Accepted: 13 September 2016 /Published online: 21 September 2016� The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Reintroducing captive-born individuals of some extirpated flagship animal
species is a helpful and remedy measure for promoting biodiversity conservation, and a
successful reintroduction relies heavily on public support. However, little information is
available on the factors affecting the public support for reintroduction of large carnivore
species. In order to evaluate public support and willingness to pay for the Giant Panda
Reintroduction Project (GPRP), we conducted 1100 interviews in August 2014 at Huaying
city, Sichuan, China, close to where captive-born giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)
will be reintroduced. The results showed that local people strongly support this project and
that 78.5 % of them are willing to pay an annual contribution. Per capita annual payments
averaged USD31, and the potential value of donations to the GPRP in Huaying is about 11
million USD per year. Factors like interviewees’ residential area, occupation, education
level, liking of wildlife, level of concern for wildlife conservation, the degree of familiarity
with giant pandas, and the frequency of visiting captive giant pandas significantly affected
their attitudes and willingness to pay for the project. The notion of ‘‘because I love pandas’’
was the main reason why respondents were willing to pay for the project; respondents’
doubts about the appropriate use of donated funds made them be unwilling to pay for the
Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1215-6)contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
1 Key Laboratory of Biodiversity Sciences and Ecological Engineering of Ministry of Education,College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R. China
2 Key Laboratory for Reproduction and Conservation Genetics of Endangered Wildlife of SichuanProvince, China Conservation and Research Center for the Giant Panda, Wolong 623006, Sichuan,P. R. China
3 Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Environmental Protection,Nanjing 210042, P. R. China
project. The results suggest that the GPRP is highly and socially acceptable amongst locals
due to perceived social, economic and ecological benefits of the reintroduction. These
findings clearly indicate, for the chances of reintroduction to be most socially accepted,
governments should improve management and accountability when using donated funds,
and create more opportunities for the public to engage with giant pandas, thereby
encouraging people to become involved in conservation work benefiting conservation for
the giant pandas and other endangered species.
Keywords Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) � Release � Willingness to pay �Contingent valuation method � Conservation awareness � Questionnaire
Introduction
As a remedial measure preventing species from extinction, the reintroduction of extirpated
threatened species is now well entrenched as a conservation tool (Bar-David et al. 2005).
Since the very first reintroduction, in which 15 captive-bred American bison (Bison bison)
were reintroduced into a newly established reserve in Oklahoma in 1907 (Kleiman 1989),
more than 700 reintroduction projects have been implemented around the world (Seddon
et al. 2012). Reviews of reintroduction projects have generally reported a low rate of
success (less than 20 %; Osborne and Seddon 2012) and conservation biologists believe
that a failure to properly consider the socioeconomic and political aspects of reintroduc-
tions may explain the predominance of poor outcomes (Arts et al. 2012; Bruskotter et al.
2010; Reading and Kellert 1993).
From a human dimension perspective, canvassing public opinion toward reintroduction
programs is essential and prudent (Decker et al. 2010; Hermann et al. 2013; Worthington
et al. 2010). Kleiman (1989) emphasized that a reintroduction cannot ultimately succeed
without public support. Reintroductions, especially of large mammals, are generally con-
troversial due to human-wildlife conflict resulting from herbivore damage to crops, carni-
vore attacks on livestock or humans, land-use changes and vehicle collisions (Lindsey et al.
2005; Nolet and Rosell 1998; Williams et al. 2002; Yen et al. 2015). Human-wildlife
conflict often causes people to take a negative attitude toward reintroduced species and can
greatly reduce the success rate of reintroduction projects (Campbell and Alvarado 2011;
O’Rourke 2014; Wilson 2004). For example, a well-known failed reintroduction of eastern
timber wolves (Canis lupes lycaen) in Michigan, USA during the 1970s involved all four
wolves being killed because of strong opposition from livestock and hunting interests (Hook
and Robinson 1982). More recently, the reintroduction of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus)
in Zimbabwe failed. The local people hunted and killed the reintroduced wild dogs because
they believed those dogs would pose threats to livestock and children (Davies and du Toit
2004). In contrast, the acceptance of local residents toward a reintroduction project can
greatly promote the project (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000; Fritts et al. 1997; Kleiman
et al. 1994; Osterberg et al. 2015). For example, in Argentina, the local community strongly
supports the return of jaguars (Panthera onca) and human-jaguar conflict was well handled
via ecotourism-mediated financial compensation schemes (Caruso and Perez 2013).
In addition to the public perception problem, reintroduction efforts are economically
costly. For instance, it is estimated that the annual cost of the reintroduction of Californian
condors (Gymnogyps californianus) is approximately one million US dollars (Cohn 1993)
and the reintroduction of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in North America costed USD
2988 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
6,700,000 over eight years (Bangs and Fritts 1996). Given the expense, it is essential that
the public and local governments understand the benefits of reintroduction through a
measurable and comparable index (money) so they can balance any contradiction between
economic development and natural conservation (Kleiman 1989; Lindsey et al. 2005). The
IUCN/SSC guidelines on species reintroduction suggest that potential economic value and
payment capacity should be estimated for local communities, and especially where com-
munities/regions are challenged economically (IUCN/SSC 2013). As a measure of valuing
environmental public goods, the contingent valuation method (CVM) has been used to
calculate public willingness to pay (WTP) for reintroduction projects (Han et al. 2010;
Richardson and Loomis 2009; Su et al. 2008). The perceived economic value of reintro-
duction projects is considered to be a critical measure in determining the relative impor-
tance of these conservation efforts, and thus is necessary for prioritization (Lee et al. 2012;
MacMillan et al. 2006).
In the feasibility evaluation of reintroduction projects from a human perspective, a
generalized paradigm including socioeconomic variables (Morzillo et al. 2010; Reading
et al. 1991) and affective (emotional) variables (Jacobs et al. 2014; Lindon and Root-
Bernstein 2015) has been developed. For socioeconomic variables, Williams et al. (2002)
summarized 109 reports of public attitudes toward the reintroduction of wolves from 1972
to 2000. Public attitudes toward wolves are associated with residential area, gender, age,
occupation, education level and monthly income. For affective variables, important factors
influencing attitudes toward wildlife include species characteristics (phylogeny, mor-
phology, size and sentient capacity) and the perceived worth of the animal (aesthetic,
ethical, recreational and cultural) (Kellert 1984; Kellert and Berry 1980; Reading and
Kellert 1993). The characteristics of a species directly influence human feelings, thus
‘‘liking of wildlife’’ is a general measure of public attitude towards nature conservation
(Mayer and Frantz 2004; Nisbet et al. 2009; Perkins 2010). The perceived worth of a
species is closely associated with cognitive and affective components. Those components
are often influenced by knowledge of the species (degree of familiarity with the species),
moral and ethical issues of animal rights (level of concern for wildlife conservation), and
experiences with the species (frequency of encountering the species in the wild or visiting
captive animals) (Heberlein 2012; Knegtering et al. 2002; Tisdell et al. 2007; Zhang et al.
2014a).
Assessing the practicability of reintroduction programs is a site-specific and species-
specific task (Arts et al. 2012; Ericsson and Heberlein 2003; Tosi et al. 2015). To our
knowledge, little has been done on WTP and public attitudes towards the reintroduction of
large and endangered mammals in China despite the government plans for reintroduction
programs in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), Chinese water deer (Hydropotes
inermis), Pere David’s deer (Elaphurus davidianus) and Przewalski’s wild horse (Equus
ferus przewalskii). In this study, we used the iconic, flagship species of giant panda to
investigate the effects of socioeconomic background and personal feelings of support for
its reintroduction in Huaying, Sichuan, China.
The giant panda is an endangered and umbrella species in China, and is considered a
necessary instrument for the conservation of nature (Kontoleon and Swanson 2003). Since
the establishment of the first nature reserve for the giant panda (Wolong National Nature
Reserve) in 1963, Chinese government has established 67 nature reserves aiming for panda
conservation, with a total area of 3.36 million hm2 (State Forestry Administration 2014).
Many sympatric endemic and endangered species such as snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinop-
ithecus roxellarae), takins (Budorcas taxicolor), red pandas (Ailurus fulgens), snow
leopards (Panthera uncia), and Chinese giant salamanders (Andrias davidianus), are also
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2989
123
protected in those panda reserves. Moreover, the giant panda has a very high aesthetic,
scientific and ecological value. It has attracted immense financial and human resources and
international attention (Loucks et al. 2001; Li et al. 2010).
The 1800 remaining wild giant pandas are fragmented across 33 small local populations
by natural isolation and human disturbance (State Forestry Administration 2014). Wild
populations remain under pressure due to habitat fragmentation and demographic isolation,
and some are at risk of extinction (Wei et al. 2012). In order to supplement and reinforce
extant populations, scientists have been working on translocating rescued wild giant
pandas into reserves and releasing captive-born individuals into the wild. Plans are also
underway to reintroduce captive-born pandas into areas previously inhabited by giant
pandas. Huaying Mountain has been selected as a target area for the first reintroduction of
giant pandas (Zhang et al. 2014b); however, the attitudes of local residents to this rein-
troduction and the potential economic support of the project remain unknown.
We conducted a survey to investigate the public opinions on the Giant Panda Rein-
troduction Project (GPRP) in Huaying area prior to implementing this reintroduction. Our
aims were to (1) determine the level of public support and WTP towards the GPRP; (2)
understand the underlying reasons of public support and WTP towards the GPRP; and (3)
explain public support and WTP using socioeconomic variables (residential area, gender,
age, occupation, education level, and monthly income) and affective variables (liking of
wildlife, level of concern for wildlife conservation, degree of familiarity with giant pandas,
and frequency of visiting captive giant pandas). Given the importance of public engage-
ment and support in the success of species reintroductions, our results will guide the ex situ
conservation of giant pandas and inform future critical decision-making by governments
and non-governmental protection organizations.
Materials and methods
Study area
The survey was conducted using face-to-face interviews from 3 to 28 August 2014 at
Huaying City (30�230N,106�460E), Sichuan in Southwest China. Huaying is a small city
with a population of 362,000 and a total area of 466 km2. In 2013, the general financial
revenue of the local government was 388 million Chinese Yuan (USD63 million; during
the field survey period, USD1 = CNY6.15), the per capita disposable income of urban
households was CNY21,865 (USD3,555), the per capita net income of rural households
was CNY9,591 (USD1,560), and the annual per capita living expenses of rural residents
was CNY3,150 (USD512). The survey sites include urban and rural areas adjacent to the
proposed reintroduction site for giant pandas.
Survey sample size determination
We adopted random sampling when interviewing local residents. We used Scheaffer’s
formula to estimate the required sample size (Scheaffer et al. 2011):
n ¼ N
N � 1ð Þd2 þ 1
2990 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
where n is the sample size; N is the number of people in the sampled population; and d is
acceptable sampling error (generally 5 %). Thus, according to the total population of the
survey area, the sample size should be greater than or equal to 400.
The likely effective response rate for the questionnaire was also taken into consideration in
order to calculate the sample size. In other similar studies in China, the effective response rate
for interview questionnaires onwildlife and biodiversity is usually greater than 80 % (Pan et al.
2010; Hu et al. 2013). Therefore, the actual sample size should not be less than 500. However,
Mitchell andCarson (1989) point out sample sizes based on theCVMshould be greater than the
general statistical threshold. And the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) suggests that sample sizes should preferably be greater than 1000 (Arrow et al. 1993).
Consequently, a total of 1100 questionnaires were issued and all were returned (response rate
100 %). After excluding incomplete and casually written questionnaires, 1011 questionnaires
were valid and used for analysis (effective response rate 92 %), a large enough sample size
providing sufficient statistical power.
For the high positive response rate in our current study, we thought it might be a cultural
issue. The giant panda has long been regarded as a source of pride in China. This is
particularly true for local communities in Sichuan province, and they have benefited much
from the panda culture. All activities concerning with giant pandas will be warmly wel-
comed and supported by local community. A previous literature shows that Huaying
mountain area used to be a historical distribution area of the giant panda (Chu and Long
1983), and one fossil of the giant panda (A. m. baconi) was later found in Huaying
mountain area in 1993 (Hu et al. 1995). The GPRP was initially proposed by the State
Forestry Administration for the aim to promote the wild panda population recovery in
Sichuan province. It will be supervised by the Department of Forestry of Sichuan province,
and conducted by China Conservation and Research Center for the giant panda at Wolong.
Supports in economy and policy from both the state, province, local government and
conservation institutions gave the local people big hopes and confidences for the success of
this planned project.
Questionnaire design
According to design principles for CVM questionnaires proposed by NOAA, and similar
studies (Mitchell and Carson 1989; Arrow et al. 1993; Turpie 2003; MacMillan et al. 2006;
Nuva et al. 2009), we used a payment scale question to assess WTP towards the GPRP. In
accordance with the results of a preliminary survey (Zhang et al. 2014b), and using feedback
from our previous open questionnaire during the pilot survey, we determined bid amounts,
questions and options. All questionsweremultiple choices: 17 of them required a single answer
and three were multiple response questions. The questionnaire has a high internal consistency
and structure validity (Cronbach a = 0.801; Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value = 0.736; Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity: approximate v2 = 2066.452, df = 10, P = 0.000).
The final formal questionnaire was divided into six sections (see Supplementary
material 1): (1) the cover provided the requirements and purposes of the survey, and
introduction to the GPRP. (2) Respondents’ socio-demographics. We designated the
respondents’ residential area as two choices (rural or urban) in the questionnaire form.
There were six groups for respondents’ age, eight groups for occupation, five groups for
education levels, and ten groups for monthly income. (3) Respondents’ prior-experience
about wildlife and giant pandas. (4) Respondents’ level of support and motivations towards
the GPRP. (5) Respondents’ WTP and motivations towards the GPRP. Both the respon-
dents’ prior experiences and degree of support were ranked on a five-point Likert scale
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2991
123
with corresponding scores: very negative, negative, neutral, positive and very positive. (6)
A reminder to check that all questions have been answered and a note of thanks for the
respondent. It is worth mentioning that two common-sense questions were included in the
sections of 3 and 4 of the questionnaire form in order to identify invalid questionnaires.
The questionnaire forms would be excluded in subsequent statistical analyses if the
respondent answered either one of the two common-sense questions incorrectly. We
thought that the survey might not have been taken seriously, or the respondent’s knowledge
about the giant panda and conservation was not qualified for taking the survey.
Interview method
In rural areas with sparse populations we performed door-to-door interviews. For each
household only one family member was randomly selected by drawing lots to participate in the
questionnaire. The survey sites covered seven villages/towns surrounding Huaying Mountain
area. In urban areas with dense populations we performed individual interviews. Survey sites
were chosen in public places, such as banks, supermarkets, parks, vocational-technical schools,
carnivals, government offices and company offices, where people could be randomly found.
Ten trained and experienced interviewers conducted the surveys. The interviewer training
method referenced a general personal interview protocol for questionnaires (Scheaffer et al.
2011). Interviewers were chosen from Huaying City and were familiar with the urban layout,
traffic and local dialect. They were all required to keep a neutral attitude and to state objective
facts pre-, during and post- the survey. The interviewers usually emphasized that there were no
right or wrong answers to the questions in the survey but simply to seek opinion. They dis-
tributed small gifts to respondents in return for participation in the survey. All respondentswere
asked to complete the questionnaire independently at the site of the interview.
Statistical analysis
For all questionnaire forms collected, we first identified their validity by examining the
answers to the two common-sense questions in addition to examining answers to other
questions and requirements for each questions. Then, we input the data from all valid
questionnaire forms into Excel. Next, we recoded the respondents’ answers to questions
about their prior experiences and degree of support as corresponding scores: very negative
(-2), negative (-1), neutral (0), positive (1) and very positive (2) according to five-point
Likert scale. For the simplicity and convenience of data analysis, we combined and defined
the age group from six to four, occupation group from eight to seven, education level from
five to two, and monthly income group from ten to three (Table 1). The category and data
of highly negative supporting degree to the GPRP was excluded in the subsequent analysis
due to the fact that all were zero values.
According to the probability distribution of WTP, the arithmetic mean of WTP was
calculated by the mathematical expectation formula of discrete variables (Voltaire et al.
2013; You et al. 2014).
EðWTP[ 0Þ ¼Xn
i¼1
BiPi
where E (WTP[ 0) represents the average of the positive WTP; Bi is the bid amount of
WTP; Pi is the probability that each bid value was chosen by respondents; and n is the
number of bid amount.
2992 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
Table 1 Summary of socioeconomic profiles of respondents and their attitudes to the giant panda rein-troduction project
Variables Categories Number of individualsa Sum
Stronglysupport
Support Neutral Oppose
Residential area Urban 406 167 34 0 607
Rural 219 144 40 1 404
Gender Male 311 153 41 0 505
Female 314 158 33 1 506
Ageb Youth 52 18 5 0 75
Young adult 213 121 28 1 363
Midlife 289 134 30 0 453
Older 71 38 11 0 120
Occupationc Civil servant/Government official
161 49 8 0 218
Public service worker 138 51 14 0 203
State-own Companyemployee
77 27 8 0 112
Self-employed 70 48 12 0 130
Farmer 93 83 24 1 201
Student 74 40 6 0 120
Pensioner 12 13 2 0 27
Education leveld High school or below 356 157 31 0 544
College or above 269 154 43 1 467
Monthly incomee Low income 134 77 12 1 224
Middle income 450 213 56 0 719
High income 41 21 6 0 68
Liking of wildlife I like it very much 388 61 8 0 457
I like it 195 133 11 0 339
I like it moderately 41 113 47 1 202
I dislike it 1 4 8 0 13
I dislike it very much 0 0 0 0 0
Level of concern forwildlifeconservation
Very concerned 338 45 3 0 386
Concerned 218 139 6 1 364
Moderately concerned 62 108 46 0 216
A little concerned 7 18 18 0 43
Not concerned at all 0 1 1 0 2
Degree of familiaritywith giant pandas
Very familiar 144 21 1 0 166
Familiar 183 104 8 0 295
Moderately familiar 216 135 38 0 389
A little familiar 79 48 26 1 154
Unfamiliar 3 3 1 0 7
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2993
123
Considering the existence of partial zero WTP, the Spike model was applied (Kristrom
1997; Reiser and Shechter 1999).
E WTPð Þ ¼ E WTP[ 0ð Þ � P
VT ¼ E WTPð Þ � T
where E (WTP) represents the non-negative WTP; P is the probability of nonzero payment;
T is the total population number of sampled area; and VT is the total WTP in the sampled
area with T individuals.
We used Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA to analyze the
difference in public supporting degree to the GPRP between respondents in two residential
areas, two genders, and two education levels, or among respondents in four age groups,
seven occupations, and three monthly income groups. We further used Cross-table tests to
analyze the differences in frequency distribution in four supporting degrees by socioeco-
nomic factors and five personal experience levels. We used Spearman rank correlation test
to analyze the relationships between public supporting degree and personal prior experi-
ence. Logistic regression modeling was used to analyze WTP towards the GPRP and
socioeconomic factors and personal prior experiences. Chi square goodness-of-fit tests
were used to analyze single-answer questions. The multiple dichotomy method was used to
analyze multiple-answer questions. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS
17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Alpha was set at 0.05 and all tests were
two-tailed.
Results
Sample characteristics
We totally identified 1011 valid questionnaire forms. The ratio of respondents living in
urban and rural areas was 1.5:1; the sex ratio was 1:1; respondents were mainly
Table 1 continued
Variables Categories Number of individualsa Sum
Stronglysupport
Support Neutral Oppose
Frequency of visitingcaptive giant pandas
Very frequently 103 12 3 0 118
Frequently 93 69 2 0 164
Moderately Frequently 190 115 35 0 340
Occasionally 161 71 23 1 256
Never 78 44 11 0 133
a The category and data for ‘highly oppose’ were omitted due to all zero valuesb Age groups were reclassified as: youth (B18), young adult (19–29), midlife (30–49), older (C50) in thedata analysisc Respondents occupation as ‘‘soldier’’ was incorporated into ‘‘public service worker’’d Education level was reclassified as high school or below and college or abovee Monthly income was reclassified as low income (B1000CNY), middle income (1000–4000CNY), highincome (C4000CNY)
2994 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
19–49 years old (age categories young adult and midlife); most worked as civil ser-
vants/government officials in government agencies, in public services and in farms
(Table 1; Supplementary material 2). The education level of respondents was mostly high
school or below, the second most common sub-category was junior college and university
degree, and less than 3 % of respondents had higher degrees. The majority of respondents
had a monthly income of below CNY4,000 (USD650), and respondents with monthly
income below CNY1,000 (USD163) were mainly pensioners and students. Students’
incomes (namely costs) were mainly subsistence and pocket money from parents and
schools. In addition, respondents generally liked wildlife and had a high level of concern
for wildlife conservation. Those respondents with a moderate/or below degree of famil-
iarity with or frequency of visiting captive pandas showed a high ratio of neutral sup-
porting degree to the GPRP (Table 1; Supplementary material 3).
Public attitudes to the GPRP and associated factors
Respondents had a very positive attitude toward the GPRP. More than 90 % of people
expressed support for the project: 61.8 % of respondents were strongly supportive, 30.8 %
of people were supportive, 7.3 % of people remained neutral, and only one person (0.1 %)
did not support this project. The percentage of opposition was too small to be reported.
Respondents thought that the GPRP would have some positive (or negative) impact on
Huaying city. Of respondents, 74.6 % believed that the project would improve the popu-
larity of Huaying; 64.7 % thought it would attract more tourists, thereby increasing local
revenue; 51.0 % thought it would improve the ecological environment; 47.9 % thought it
would raise public awareness of environmental protection; 32.3 % thought it would
increase opportunities for employment; and 5.6 % questioned that it would damage the
interests of villagers in and neighboring Huaying Mountain.
Urban residents were more supportive than rural residents to the GPRP (Table 2). Of all
occupations, civil servants/government officials had the most positive attitude of sup-
porting ratio; the second most positive group consisted of state-own company employees,
public service workers, and students; the third positive group was self-employed people;
and the least positive groups were farmers and pensioners. Statistic results showed that
civil servants/government officials, state-own company employees and public service
workers had significantly higher degree of supporting than other four occupations except
students (Table 2; Supplementary material 4). People with higher education levels tended
to be more supportive to the project than those with high school or below education level.
The respondents’ prior experiences, such as ‘‘liking of wildlife’’, ‘‘level of concern for
wildlife conservation’’, ‘‘degree of familiarity with giant pandas’’, and ‘‘frequency of
visiting captive giant pandas’’, were all positively and significantly correlated with levels
of support for the GPRP.
Willingness to pay for the GPRP and associated factors
More than three quarters of respondents (78.5 %) were willing to pay an annual contri-
bution towards the GPRP; 217 (21.5 %) people were unwilling to pay. Of respondents who
were willing to pay, 83.2 % said they would pay CNY200 (USD33) or less for the GPRP
annually (Fig. 1). On the basis of the frequency distribution of bids, the per capita annual
payments can be calculated as following:
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2995
123
Table 2 Public attitudes and supporting degree towards the Giant Panda Reintroduction Project andstatistic results
s- The percentage data of ‘‘strongly opposed’’ were omitted due to all zero values for this variablea Mann–Whitney U testb Kruskal–Wallis one-way Anovac Spearman Rank Correlation test
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2997
123
numbers in the wild’’ (49.7 %); ‘‘because I have a sense of social responsibility’’ (34.6 %);
‘‘the reintroduction of giant pandas will help to promote local development’’ (32.7 %); and
‘‘to increase opportunities to watch the pandas’’ (27.9 %). For the preferred payment
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 30 50 100 200 300 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
WTP bids (CNY)
Fig. 1 The distribution of respondents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) bids, in Chinese Yuan (CNY).Percentages were calculated based on all respondents; ‘zero’ bar shows the percentage of people whowere unwilling to pay
Fig. 2 Logistic regression analysis of willingness-to-pay towards the Giant Panda Reintroduction Project.Percentage value indicates the percentage of people who were willing to pay. ns no significance,***P\ 0.001, **P\ 0.01, *P\ 0.05 (two-tailed)
2998 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
method(s), there was a significant difference among the eight payment methods
(v2 = 198.282, df = 7, P = 0.000). The three most preferred payment methods by cash
were: ‘‘donation to a Wildlife Conservation Fund’’ (such as China Wildlife Conservation
Association; 26.8 % of willing respondents); ‘‘tickets to visit Panda Houses in zoos’’
(16.0 %); and ‘‘donation to the relevant agencies (Wolong Panda Club) of China Con-
servation and Research Center for the Giant Panda’’ (14.7 %). Less than half of WTP
respondents selected the remaining five kinds of non-cash payment methods: ‘‘donation of
funds to the relevant institutes by bank transfer, remittances etc. (including online banking
payments)’’ (9.8 %); ‘‘money obtained through the purchase of certain goods (such as giant
panda souvenirs, etc.) and indirectly donated to the relevant institutes’’ (9.7 %); ‘‘by
sending a cell phone text message to donate to the relevant institutes’’ (9.1 %); ‘‘in the
form of a land-fill tax paid to the state’’ (7.6 %); and ‘‘through a third party payment
platform (e.g. PayPal and Tenpay) that will donate funds to the relevant institutes’’
(6.3 %).
People who were unwilling to pay for the project stated (v2 = 51.088, df = 4,
P = 0.000): ‘‘I have a low income; it is difficult to pay other expenses’’ (31.3 %); ‘‘all
costs should be funded by the state and not by individuals’’ (30.0 %); ‘‘I do not believe that
the donated funds will be rationally or really used to protect the giant panda’’ (18.9 %); and
‘‘I am unwilling to invest money to participate in this public service, but prefer to help
protect the giant panda in other ways (such as by volunteering)’’ (14.3 %). Only 5.5 % of
people said that they were unwilling to pay because they were not interested in the
conservation of giant pandas.
Discussion
Here, we evaluated the public acceptance of a reintroduction program of the giant panda in
Huaying city (Sichuan, Southwest China) to evaluate the potential for a human-wildlife
conflict prior to the actual reintroduction. Public support for the GPRP is strong and broad-
based. The positive attitude is associated with a high degree of concern about giant pandas
obtained from various media. Giant pandas are considered to be charismatic animals: they
not only have a high ecological value but also social and political functions (Du 2012). As
Reading and Clark (1996) concluded, gaining support for charismatic species like bears is
easier than for small, lesser-known species. Social, economic and ecological benefits to the
local community are another way to increase support. For example, in Chile, strong support
for the reintroduction of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) is due to guanaco as a symbol of social
culture (Lindon and Root-Bernstein 2015). In Oman, many people are employed by the
captive-born Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) reintroduction program and the program is
widely accepted by the local community (Fitter 1984; Price 1986). In Scotland, the public
are generally positive about wolf (Canis lupus) reintroductions because the species plays
an important role in maintaining ecological functions in the ecosystem (Nilsen et al. 2007).
The GPRP will have remarkable impacts on the local economy and development. First,
the ‘celebrity effect’ of the giant panda will improve the popularity of Huaying. For
example, Huaying, a small county in the past, has become a famous county-level city not
only in Sichuan but also around China after the state and provincial television reported the
news of GPRP. Second, giant pandas will attract tourists and large potential investment
(financial and human resources) will provide many job opportunities for local people
thereby promoting economic development and increasing fiscal revenue. A wild-training
Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004 2999
123
base was built and a pair of panda was moved in on August 25, 2014. This pair of panda’s
coming has greatly promoted the Tour Festival of Huaying in 2015 (Huaying On-line
2015). Third, as it is a strong symbol and representative for the conservation of nature, the
giant panda is likely to arouse public awareness of environmental protection and improve
the ecological environment. Inevitably, the GPRP may damage the interests of villagers
neighboring the target panda reintroduction area in Huaying Mountain. For instance, it will
be a prerequisite for the local government to establish a reserve prior to implementing the
GPRP. Some villagers may have to return their farmland to recover forestry, and some
villagers living inside the target panda reintroduction area may have to move out to other
places albeit they can get some compensation by doing so. Nonetheless, the positive effects
of GPRP outweigh any negatives, and local residents earnestly hope that giant pandas will
be reintroduced. Some villagers losing farm land can act as reserve patrollers or even staff
at the reserve.
In our study, residential area, occupation and education level affected attitudes and
WTP towards the GPRP. First, many studies have shown that rural residents tend to have
more negative attitudes towards reintroduction programs than urban residents (Ericsson
and Heberlein 2003; Morzillo et al. 2010; Nilsen et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2002; Yen
et al. 2015). Kellert (1994) postulated that being rural tended to predispose one to more
negative attitudes toward bears because these individuals are more connected to land-use
problems. Our results support this interpretation that rural residents were less supportive of
the GPRP than urban residents because some rural residents worry that their land will be
expropriated by the government as a result of the GPRP. Second, people working in
government agencies, state-owned companies and public services have a more positive
attitude and are more willing to pay than people in other professions. This is likely because
those people working government agencies and public services have a greater job security
and may get more money from tourism than other occupations. Thus, it is understandable
that those people usually have a greater awareness of conservation (Du et al. 2010;
Mahanta and Das 2013). The lowest level of support for the GPRP occurred amongst
farmers and pensioners, probably because farmers will be directly and negatively affected
by the reintroduction by being forbidden in mining, bamboo and bamboo shoot collecting
etc. in the targeted GPRP area (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Williams et al. 2002). For the
pensioners, however, we thought their lower support were highly related to their low and
fix income and the increasing price of food and costs for medicine and hospitalization.
Third, people with higher levels of education had more positive attitudes because increased
education often brings a greater awareness of wildlife and environment (Kellert 1984;
Masud and Kari 2015; Zhou et al. 2009). Interestingly, we found no relationship between
age and support for the GPRP, yet young people are more willing to pay for the project
than older people. This is possibly because young people may also be able to earn more or
they may feel that they can earn more. The older people, however, may be more on a fixed
income. More than three quarters of the local people had a positive attitude toward the
GPRP, but not everyone was willing to pay for the project. The WTP associated with age is
probably a cohort effect (Bowman et al. 2004; Kellert 1994; Williams et al. 2002) as
younger age groups may be more influenced by communications about donating to
endangered species recovery, especially charismatic megafauna.
Evaluations of nature and conservation that are utilitarian, intrinsic or esthetic are
influenced by affective (emotional) considerations or by rational (also called ‘cognitive’)
considerations (Crites et al. 1994; Edwards 1990). Human affections influence virtually all
aspects of cognition, such as attention (Ohman 2009), perception (Dolan 2002) and
motivation (Izard 2009). Personal feelings are considered important factors in evaluating
3000 Biodivers Conserv (2016) 25:2987–3004
123
the likelihood of public acceptance to reintroduction programs (Hermann and Menzel
2013; Tosi et al. 2015). We found that the more people like wildlife, the more concerned
they are about wildlife conservation, and the more familiar they are with giant pandas the
more supportive they are of the project. People who frequently visited captive giant pandas
had a more positive attitude than those who occasionally or never visited zoos or giant
panda breeding centers. This suggests that a subjective bias with emotional experience can
influence attitudes, which are more central in cognitive systems (Ericsson and Heberlein
2003; Petty et al. 1992; Seamon 1984).
Despite members of the local community strongly supporting the GPRP and most
people being willing to pay for the program, more than 20 % respondent were unwilling to
pay for the GPRP (Fig. 1). Some of them possibly cannot afford it, while others thought it
was not their own but the state’s responsibility to support the project. Nonetheless, about
one in ten preferred to help in other ways. In addition, doubts about the appropriate use of
donated funds significantly prevented some respondents from donating to the project. This
indicates a crisis of confidence and creditability. Negative phenomena in a society, such as
misusing and corruption, can easily impair the public’s decision to donate. A young
Chinese woman’s blog about the funding using of Red Cross Society of China in 2011
enraged the public and put the society into an unprecedented crisis of trust (China Daily
2011). Similarly, the act of misusing charity funds by American Red Cross has infuriated
the public and caused some protests (CBS News 2014). Our findings suggest that gov-
ernmental and non-governmental organizations for environmental protection should
increase accountability and transparency by frequently releasing information about their
use of the donated funds. In addition, the managing institutions, either the state or a non-
government organization, need to do a better job explaining why the funds are needed.
Last, some additional opportunities should be created for members of the public to engage
in works or activities concerning with giant pandas via increased contact at breeding
facilities in order to maintain high enthusiasm amongst current supporters of the program
and foster support amongst new groups of people.
Acknowledgments Thanks to staff at the Huaying Forestry Bureau for their assistance in distributing andcollecting questionnaires. We appreciated insightful comments and suggestions from two anonymousreviewers.
Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Grant31472009), National Key Technology R & D Program (Grant 2012BAC01B06), The International Col-laborative Project on the Conservation for the Giant Panda to D Liu (Grant Beijing 2010–2002) and R Wei(Grant WH0630), and National Key Program of Research and Development, Ministry of Science andTechnology of the P. R. China (2016YFC0503200).
Compliance of ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter-national License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and thesource, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR et al (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist58:4601–4614
Arts K, Fischer A, Wal RVD (2012) Common stories of reintroduction: a discourse analysis of documentssupporting animal reintroductions to Scotland. Land Use Policy 29:911–920
Bangs EE, Fritts SH (1996) Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.Wildl Soc Bull 24:402–413
Bar-David S, Saltz D, Dayan T et al (2005) Demographic models and reality in reintroductions: persianfallow deer in Israel. Conserv Biol 19:131–138
Bowman JL, Leopold BD, Vilella FJ, Gill DA (2004) A spatially explicit model, derived from demographicvariables, to predict attitudes toward black bear restoration. J Wildl Manage 68:223–232
Bruskotter JT, Toman E, Enzler SA, Schmidt RH (2010) Are gray wolves endangered in the northern RockyMountains? A role for social science in listing determinations. Bioscience 60:941–948
Campbell MO, Alvarado MET (2011) Public perceptions of jaguars Panthera onca, pumas Puma concolorand coyotes Canis latrans in El Salvador. Area 43:250–256
Caruso F, Perez IJ (2013) Tourism, local pride, and attitudes towards the reintroduction of a large predator,the jaguar Panthera onca in Corrientes, Argentina. Endang Species Res 21:263–272
CBS news (2014) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-cross-accused-of-misusing-funds-during-hurricanes-isaac-and-sandy/. Accessed 17th Aug 2016
China Daily (2011) http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-07/15/content_12912148.htm. Accessed17th Aug 2016
Chu C, Long Z (1983) The vicissitudes of the giant panda. Acta Zool Sinica 29:93–104Cohn JP (1993) The flight of the California condor. Bioscience 43:206–209Crites SL, Fabrigar LR, Petty RE (1994) Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes:
conceptual and methodological issues. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20:619–634Davies HT, du Toit JT (2004) Anthropogenic factors affecting wild dog Lycaon pictus reintroductions: a
case study in Zimbabwe. Oryx 38:32–39Decker SE, Bath AJ, Simms A et al (2010) The return of the king or bringing snails to the garden? The
human dimensions of a proposed restoration of European bison (Bison bonasus) in Germany. RestorEcol 18:41–51
Dolan RJ (2002) Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science 298:1191–1194Du WQ (2012) On the giant panda and its social value. J Sichuan Forest Explore Des 1:1–10Du H, Gan F, Wei QW et al (2010) Non-use value assessment of Chinese Sturgeon Nature Reserve of
Yangtze River in Yichang, Hubei Province based on the contingent valuation method. Sichuan J ofZool 29:933–937
Edwards K (1990) The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. J Pers Soc Psychol59:202–216
Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2003) Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that thewolves are back. Biol Conserv 111:149–159
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. BiolConserv 96:1–11
Fitter R (1984) Operation Oryx—the success continues. Oryx 18:136–137Fritts SH, Bangs EE, Fontaine JA et al (1997) Planning and implementing a reintroduction of wolves to
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Restor Ecol 5:7–27Han SY, Lee CK, Mjelde JW, Kim TK (2010) Choice-experiment valuation of management alternatives for
reintroduction of the endangered mountain goral in Woraksan National Park, South Korea. Scand JForest Res 25:534–543
Heberlein TA (2012) Navigating environmental attitudes. Conserv Biol 26:583–585Hermann N, Menzel S (2013) Predicting the intention to support the return of wolves: a quantitative study
with teenagers. J Environ Psychol 36:153–161Hermann N, Voss C, Menzel S (2013) Wildlife value orientations as predicting factors in support of
reintroducing bison and of wolves migrating to Germany. J Nat Conserv 21:125–132Hook RA, Robinson WL (1982) Attitudes of Michigan citizens toward predators. In: Hanington FH, Paquet
PC (eds) Wolves of the world: perspectives of behavior, ecology, and conservation. Noyes Publica-tions, Park Ridge, pp 382–394
Hu JC, Wang RF, Xiong ZY (1995) A fossil of the giant panda discovered in the Huaying Mountains.J Sichuan Teach Coll (Nat Sci) 16:1–5
Hu XS, Hong W, Wu CZ, Qiu RZ (2013) Improvement of key techniques of contingent valuation method inestimating environmental resource value. Chin J Ecol 32:3101–3108
Huaying On-line (2015) http://www.huaying.ccoo.cn/news/local/3748391.html. Accessed 17th, Aug 2016IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0.
IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, SwitzerlandIzard CE (2009) Emotion theory and research: highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annu
Rev Psychol 60:1–25Jacobs MH, Vaske JJ, Dubois S, Fehres P (2014) More than fear: role of emotions in acceptability of lethal
control of wolves. Eur J Wildl Res 60:589–598Kellert SR (1984) American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In: Fox MW, Mickley
LD (eds) Advances in animal welfare science. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington,D.C., pp 177–213
Kellert SR (1994) Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. Bears 9:43–50Kellert SR, Berry JK (1980) Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in american society.
Phase III. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.Kleiman DG (1989) Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39:152–161Kleiman DG, Stanley PMR, Beck BB (1994) Criteria for reintroductions. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner
ATC (eds) Creatire conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman andHall Press, New York, pp 287–303
Knegtering E, Hendrickx L, van der Windt HJ, Uiterkamp AJMS (2002) Effects of species’ characteristicson nongovernmental organizations’ attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environ Behav34:378–400
Kontoleon A, Swanson T (2003) The willingness to pay for property rights for the giant panda: can acharismatic species be an instrument for nature conservation. Land Econ 79:483–499
Kristrom B (1997) Spike models in contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 79:1013–1023Lee Y, Harrison JL, Eisenberg C, Lee B (2012) Modeling biodiversity benefits and external costs from a
keystone predator reintroduction policy. J Mt Sci 9:385–394Li S, Wang DJ, Gu XD, McShea WJ (2010) Beyond pandas, the need for a standardized monitoring protocol
for large mammals in Chinese nature reserves. Biodivers Conserv 19:3195–3206Lindon A, Root-Bernstein M (2015) Phoenix flagships: conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in
an anthropogenic landscape. Ambio 44:458–471Lindsey PA, du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2005) Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild dogs Lycaon pictus:
conservation implications on private land. Biol Conserv 125:113–121Loucks CJ, Lu Z, Dinerstein E et al (2001) Giant pandas in a changing landscape. Science 294:1465MacMillan D, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference
engine. Ecol Econ 60:299–307Mahanta R, Das D (2013) Attitudes towards biodiversity conservation of forests dwellers and encroachers: a
case study of Assam in Northeast India. Small-scale For 12:307–319Masud MM, Kari FB (2015) Community attitudes towards environmental conservation behaviour: an
empirical investigation within MPAs, Malaysia. Mar Policy 52:138–144Mayer FS, Frantz CM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in
community with nature. J Environ Psychol 24:503–515Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method.
Resources for the Future Press, Washington, D.C.Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Hollister JW et al (2010) Socioeconomic factors affecting local support for black
bear recovery strategies. Environ Manag 45:1299–1311Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A (2003) Paying for tolerance: rural citizens’ attitudes toward
wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv Biol 17:1500–1511Nilsen EB, Milner-Gulland EJ, Schofield L et al (2007) Wolf reintroduction to Scotland: public attitudes and
consequences for red deer management. P Roy Soc B 274:995–1002Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale linking individuals’ connection
with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav 41:715–740Nolet BA, Rosell F (1998) Comeback of the beaver Castor fiber: an overview of old and new conservation
problems. Biol Conserv 83:165–173Nuva R, Shamsudin MN, Radam A, Shuib A (2009) Willingness to pay towards the conservation of
ecotourism resources at Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park, West Java, Indonesia. J Sustain Dev2:173–186
Ohman A (2009) Of snakes and faces: an evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear. Scand JPsychol 50:543–552
O’Rourke E (2014) The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: people and wildlife. LandUse Policy 38:129–137
Osborne PE, Seddon PJ (2012) Selecting suitable habitats for reintroductions: variation, change and the roleof species distribution modeling. In: Ewen JG, Armstrong DP, Parker KA, Seddon PJ (eds) Reintro-duction biology: integrating science and management. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 73–104
Osterberg P, Samphanthamit P, Maprang O et al (2015) Gibbon (Hylobates lar) reintroduction success inPhuket, Thailand, and its conservation benefits. Am J Primatol 77:492–501
Pan DS, Wang HJ, Li YH et al (2010) Survey of public awareness on wildlife conservation in communitiesaround Daxiagu Nature Reserve, Guangdong. Chin J Wildl 31:218–220
Perkins HE (2010) Measuring love and care for nature. J Environ Psychol 30:455–463Petty RE, Unnava RH, Strathman AJ (1992) Theories of attitude change. In: Robertson TS, Kassarjian HH
(eds) Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 241–268Price MRS (1986) The reintroduction of the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) into Oman. Int Zoo Yearbook
24:179–188Reading RP, Clark TW (1996) Carnivore reintroductions: an interdisciplinary examination. In: Gittleman JL
(ed) Carnivore Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution, vol 2. Cornell University Press, New York,pp 296–336
Reading RP, Kellert SR (1993) Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (Mustelanigripes). Conserv Biol 7:569–580
Reading RP, Clark TW, Kellert SR (1991) Toward an endangered species reintroduction paradigm. EndangSpecies Update 8:1–4
Reiser B, Shechter M (1999) Incorporating zero values in the economic valuation of environmental programbenefits. Environmetrics 10:87–101
Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: anupdated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68:1535–1548
Scheaffer RL, Mendenhall W, Ott RL, Gerow K (2011) Elementary Survey Sampling, 7th edn. DuxburyPress, New York
Seamon D (1984) Emotional experience of the environment. Am Behav Sci 27:757–770Seddon PJ, Strauss WM, Innes J (2012) Animal translocations: what are they and why do we do them? In:
State Forestry Administration (2014) The 4rd national survey report on Giant Panda in China. Science Press,Beijing
Su T, Chen M, Zhang ED et al (2008) Social value of reintroducing Chinese water deer (Hydropotesinermis) into Shanghai. Sichuan J Zool 27:142–144
Tisdell C, Swarna Nantha H, Wilson C (2007) Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: howimportant are they for payments proposed for conservation. Ecol Econ 60:627–633
Tosi G, Chirichella R, Zibordi F et al (2015) Brown bear reintroduction in the Southern Alps: to what extentare expectations being met. J Nat Conserv 26:9–19
Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge,income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 46:199–216
Voltaire L, Pirrone C, Bailly D (2013) Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to payfor a nature protection program: a new approach. Ecol Econ 88:76–85
Wei FW, Hu YB, Zhu LF et al (2012) Black and white and read all over: the past, present and future of giantpanda genetics. Mol Ecol 21:5660–5674
Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves andtheir reintroduction (1972-2000). Wildl Soc Bull 30:575–584
Wilson CJ (2004) Could we live with reintroduced large carnivores in the UK. Mamm Rev 34:211–232Worthington T, Tisdale J, Kemp P et al (2010) Public and stakeholder attitudes to the reintroduction of the
burbot, Lota lota. Fisheries Manag Ecol 17:465–472Yen SC, Chen KH, Wang Y, Wang CP (2015) Residents’ attitudes toward reintroduced sika deer in Kenting
National Park. Taiwan Wildl Bio 21:220–226You WB, He DJ, Hong W et al (2014) The non-use value of heritage resources in Wuyishan scenery district
using the contingent valuation method. Resour Sci 36:1880–1888Zhang WZ, Goodale E, Chen J (2014a) How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and
conservation attitude in China. Biol Conserv 177:109–116Zhang MC, Huang JY, Huang Y et al (2014b) Preliminary survey for the giant panda reintroduce to
Huayingshan. Sichuan J Zool 33:376–380Zhou XH, Ma JZ, Zhang W, Wang Q (2009) Evaluating the economic value of endangered species con-
servation with contigent method and its reliability analysis—a case study on the willingness to pay ofthe citizens in Harbin on Amur. J Nat Resour 24:276–285
